DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

“”
COMMON INTENTION AND COMMON OBJECT UNDER
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860:”

“”

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

MR. MALAY PANDEY SHIVANI SINGH,
ASSISTANT PROFFESOR OF LAW ROLL NO- 127,
DR. RMLNLU, LUCKNOW. B.A.LLB(HONS.)/SEM IV
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express our gratitude to all those who made it possible for us to complete this
project, which includes everyone. This project is the result of extensive research. I would like
to thank our guides Mr. Malay Pandey, who inspired me to do this project, whose help and
stimulating suggestion helped through the research for this project.
I further extend our thanks to “library staff of DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL
LAW UNIVERSITY who helped me in getting all the books and necessary documents for the
project.
 TABLE OF CONTENT

 INTRODUCTION

 COMMON INTENTION”””””””

 COMMON OBJECT””””””””

 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMON INTENTION AND COMMON OBJECT””””

 CONCLUSION

 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 “COMMON INTENTION”

“Section 34.: “Acts Done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention-

According to Section 34, when a criminal act is done by several persons in continuance of
common intention of all”, “each of such person is accountable for that act in the same manner
as if it were done by him without help.”

Object of Section 34”: “Section 34 lays down only a rule of evidence and does not create a
substantive offence. This section is intended to meet cases in which it may be difficult to
distinguish between the acts of the individual members of a party or to prove exactly what
part was taken by each of them” in continuance of the common intention of all.” This section
actually means that if two or more persons deliberately do a thing together, it is just the same
as if each of them has done it independently. “The reason why all are deemed guilty in such
cases is that the presence of co-conspirators gives reassurance, support and protection to the
person actually committing an act.”””””””””””””

“Elements of Section 34”: “To attract the application of Section 34, the following conditions
must be satisfied:”

1. Some Criminal Act”:

“‘Criminal Act’ used in section 34 does not refer to individual acts where a crime is
committed by a group of persons.” “Where a crime is committed by several persons in
furtherance of common intention of all of them, each of them doing some act, similar or
diverse, big or small shall be liable for that act. ‘That act’ refers to the ‘criminal act’ used in
section 34 which means the unity of criminal behaviour which results in something for which
an individual would be punishable if it were all done by himself alone in an offence.”

2. “Criminal Act Done by Several Persons:”

“The criminal act in question must have been done by several persons i.e. by more than one
person. The number of wrong doers should be at least two.” Most notably”, if the criminal act
was new and self-regulating” act springing wholly “from the mind of the doer, the others are
not liable simply because when” it was done they were aiming to be participants with the
doer in a different criminal act.”
3. “Common Intention”:

“The confrontations ‘in furtherance”” of “the common intention of all’ were added to section
34 after words ‘persons’ in 1870 the idea” for which, perhaps”, was derivative from the
succeeding” passage of the Privy Council’s decision:”

“Where parties go with a common purpose to execute a common intention, each and every
one becomes responsible” for the acts”” of each and every” other in implementation and
furtherance”” of their common” purpose, as the purpose is common so must” be the
responsibility.” As given in Ganesh Singh”” v. Ram” Raja1.”

“The expression ‘common intention’ means unity of purpose or a pre-arranged plan; it has
been given various meanings. Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan, prior meeting
of minds, prior consultation in between all the persons constituting the group given in the
case of Mahboob Shah v. Emperor2 .”

“Common intention means the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence that has been
committed, as per DAS, J., in Ibra Akanda v. Emperor3 .” It also means” malevolent
intent”” to commit some criminal” act, but not necessarily the “same offence, which is
committed, as per WANCHOO, J., in Saidu Khan v. The State4 .”

“Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan. Pre-arranged plan means prior concert or
prior meeting of minds. Criminal act must be done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged
plan. Common intention comes into being prior” to the directive” of the act in point of time.
Where there is no sign of planning” or of a “pre-arranged plan, the mere fact that the two
accused were seen at the spot or that the two-accused” fired as a result”” of which one
person died and two others received” meek injuries could not be held enough to infer
common intention, as in Ramachander v. State of Rajasthan5.”

1
(1869) 3 Beng LR (PC) 44, 45.
2
AIR 1945 PC 118.
3
AIR 1944 Cal. 339.
4
AIR 1951 All 21 (F.B.).
5
1970 Cr.L.J. 653.
“However, common intention may develop on the spot as between a number of persons and
this has to be inferred from the act and conduct of the accused, and facts and circumstances
of the case as in Kripal Singh v. State of U.P.6”””””””””””

4.” “Participation in the Criminal Act:”

“The participation” in a criminal act of a group” is a state example in order to fix joint
liability and there must” be some evident act symptomatic of a common” “intention to
commit an offence. The law requires that the accused must be present on the spot during the
occurrence of the crime and take part in its commission; it is enough if he is present
somewhere nearby.”

“The Supreme Court has held that it is the essence of the section that the person must be
physically present at the actual commission of the crime.” He need” not be present in the
definite room; he can for example,” stand guard by a gate outside ready to caution his” mates
about any tactic of danger or wait in” a car on a nearby road ready to ease their” seepage, but
he must be actually present at the scene of the incidence” and must really participate in the
commission” of the offence some way or other at the time”” crime is really being committed.

“The first leading case on the point is Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor 7(also
known as Shankari Tola Post Office Murder Case). In this case several persons appeared
before the sub-postmaster who was counting the cash” on the table and commanded the cash.
In the mean while they” opened fire murdered the sub-postmaster and ran away without
taking any cash. Barendra Kumar” was, however, wedged with a pistol in his hand” and was
given over to the police.”””””””””””””””””””””””

“The accused was tried under sections 302/34 as according to the prosecution he was one of
the three men who fired at the sub-postmaster.” The suspect denied his charge on the ground
that he was just standing outside and had not fired at the departed.” The trial” court, on
being” contented that the” sub-postmaster” was killed in continuance” of the common
intention” of all, sentenced” the accused even” if he had not fired” the mortal shot.”

“The High Court of Calcutta and the Privy Council both agreed with the findings of the trial
court and held the accused guilty of murder.” Section 34 deals with doing” of distinct act, like
or varied by numerous persons; if all are done in continuance” of a common intention, each
person is answerable for the result of them all as if he had done them himself.”
6
AIR 1954 SC 706.
7
AIR 1925 PC 1.
“ COMMON OBJECT”

“Section 149, like Section 34, is the other instance of constructive joint liability. Section 149
creates a specific offence. It runs as under:”

““If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the

common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely
to be committed in prosecution of that object,” every individual who, at the while of the
obligating of that offence, is a participant of the assembly, is guilty of that wrongdoing.””

“Essentials of Section 149: “The essence of offence under Section 149 is assembly of
several (five or more) persons having one or more of the common objects mentioned in
Section 141 and it could be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and
the behaviour of the assembly at or before scene of occurrence.” Section 149 creates”
combined obligation of all associates of an illegal” assembly for criminal act done by” any
member in trial of the common object” of the said assembly. So, the vital ingredients of
Section 149 are:”

 “There must be an unlawful assembly, as defined in Section 141;”

 “Criminal act must be done by any member of such assembly.”
 “Act done is for prosecution of the common object of the assembly or such which was
likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.”
 “Members have voluntarily joined the unlawful assembly and knew the common
object of the assembly.”
 “Mere presence and sharing of common object of the assembly makes a person liable
for the offence committed even if he had no intention to commit that offence.”

“Scope of Section 149: The Section is divided into two parts-

“In Trial” of The Common” Object: “The words “in trial of the common object” show that
the wrongdoing committed was” directly connected with the common object of the unlawful
assembly of which suspects were members”. “The act must have been done with a view to
accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly.”
“In Queen” v. Sabid”” Ali 8 the words “in trial of” the common object” were construed” as
meaning ‘with a view to accomplishment of the common object’.”””””

“Members” Knew to be probable- The additional” part narrates to a state” where the
associates of the assembly” knew that the wrongdoing” is likely to be committed" in trial of
the common object. “A object is likely to occur only when the state is like “it will perhaps
happen” or “may “very well happen”.” The word ‘knew’ specifies” a state of cognizance” at
the time of commission” of an offence, knowledge” in this regard must be proved”. “The
word ‘likely’ means some clear evidence that the unlawful assembly had such a knowledge.”

“DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMON INTENTION AND COMMON OBJECT:”

“The difference between common intention and common object may be stated as under: “

1. “Under Section 34 number of persons must be more than one. Under Section 149
number of persons must be five or more.”

2. “Section 34 does not create any specific offence but only states a rule of evidence.
Section 149 creates a specific offence.”

3. “Common intention required under Section 34 may be of any type. Common object under
Section 149 must be one of the objects mentioned in Section 141.”””’””

4. “Common intention under Section 34 requires prior consultation of minds or pre-

arranged strategy,” i.e. all the accused” people must meet together” before the real attack”
partook by all takes place. “Under Section 149”, prior meeting of minds is not necessary”.”
Mere association of an illegal meeting at the time of command of the crime is enough.”

5. “Under Section 34 some” active contribution” is essential,” particularly in a crime

involving corporal violence.” Section 149 does” not require active participation” and the
liability arises” by reason of mere” membership of the unlawful assembly” with a
common object.””

“Common Intention may Also Develop on The Spot: Exception to The General Rule :”
8
11 BLR 347.
“Generally, it is said that, “a common object may develop on the spot, but a common
intention cannot But, in” certain conditions” common intention also may develop abruptly”
on the spot and such common” intention may be incidental from” the facts and conditions of
the case” and conduct of the accused persons. “Following” cases are illustrative on this point-

“In Kripal Singh” v. State of U.P.9, the Supreme” Court held that a common intention may
advance on the spot after the wrongdoers have met” there.” A preceding” plan is not
essential. Common intention may be conditional from” the behaviour of the accused” and the
situations of the case.”

“In Rishi Deo Pandey v. State of U.P. 10, ‘A’ and ‘B’ two brothers were seen standing near
the bed of the target who was asleep.” One of” them was prepared with a ‘gandasa’ and one
more with a ‘lathi’, when a hue and cry was elevated” by the two brothers ran together, and
both of them were seen running from the bedroom of the victim”.” The victim died of a slit
wound on the neck, which conferring to medical suggestion was unavoidably deadly”.” The
court found that the two brothers shared the common” intention to cause death. It was held
that common purpose may grow on the spot also.””

“ “In Sheoram Singh v. State of U.P.11, the Supreme Court held that common intention may
develop suddenly during the course of an occurrence, but still unless there is cogent evidence
and clear proof of such common intention.”””””””””””””

“DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SECTION 34 AND SECTION 149 IPC ”””””””””””””””””

“Section 34- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”- When a
wrong act is done by numerous persons” in continuance of the common intention” of all, each
of such persons is accountable for that act in the same manner” as if it were done by him
unaided.”

“Section 149-If an offence” is committed by any fellow of an illegal assembly in trial of the
common thing of that assembly”, or such as the members” or that assembly knew to be
likely” to be committed” in trial of that” object, every individual who, at the time” of the
promising of that offence, is a member of the same” assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

9
AIR 1954 SC 706.
10
AIR 1955 SC 331.
11
AIR 1972 SC 2555.
“Both Offences talk about crime by group of people. Such that if a crime is done by 2 or
more people but less than 5 then section 149 is not applicable whereas section 34 is
applicable on those offences.”””””””””

“Section 149 deals with the 5 or more people as that would account for unlawful assembly
here section 34 is not applicable.””””””””””””””””””

“Section 34 talks about common purpose whereas section 149 talks about common body such
as the common body has a wider scope.” Common intention” is if two or more person
commits any crime with the same intention and under a prearranged” plan,” But in common
object it is not essential that there should be a preceding concert in the sense” of a assembly
of the members of the unlawful assembly, the common object may form on spur” of the
moment;” it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them.”
”””””””””

“In section 34 Participation of the people in crime is an important aspect, even standing
people who indirectly help in commissioning of crime are also prosecuted.””””””””””

“But in Section 149 mere membership of the group of an unlawful assembly is sufficient
enough for prosecution.”

“Section 34 is a substantive evidence and other sections like 302 murder has to be clubbed
with it.”””””””””””””

“Section 149 is a constructive crime.””””

 CONCLUSION

“According to Section 34, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it
were done by him alone.” Section 34 rests down only a regulation of “indication and does not
create a substantive offence.” This section is proposed to meet cases in which it may be
difficult to differentiate amid the acts of the individual members of a party or to show exactly
what part was taken by each of them in continuance of the common purpose of all.” This
section really means that if two or more persons deliberately do a thing together, it is just the
same as if each of them has done it independently.” The motive why all are believed to be
guilty in such cases is that the company of accomplices gives reassurance, “support and
protection to the person actually obligating an act.”
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.Prof. S.N.Mishra”; “Indian Penal Code; Central Law Publications, Allahabad, Tenth
Edition (September) 2001.
2. K.D. Gaur”; “A Textbook of The Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing Company
Pvt. Limited, New Delhi, Third Edition 2004.
3. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal”; “The Indian Penal Code; Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur; 28th
Edition Reprint 2002.
4. O.P. Srivastava”; “Principles of Criminal Law”””, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow,
Third Edition 1997 Reprint 2004.